Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

International Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Comparative and Foreign Law

UIC School of Law

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

2012

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in International Law

Extraterritorial Protection Of Trade Secret Rights In China: Do Section 337 Actions At The Itc Really Prevent Trade Secret Theft Abroad?, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 523 (2012), Steven E. Feldman, Sherry L. Rollo Jan 2012

Extraterritorial Protection Of Trade Secret Rights In China: Do Section 337 Actions At The Itc Really Prevent Trade Secret Theft Abroad?, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 523 (2012), Steven E. Feldman, Sherry L. Rollo

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

With an ever increasing number of United States ("U.S.") companies conducting business abroad or conducting business with foreign entities there is more need than ever for the U.S. companies to consider how they can protect their intellectual property assets. The Federal Circuit‘s recent TianRui Grp.Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n and Amsted Indus. decision highlights the potential of section 337 of the U.S. Patent Act as a tool to prevent the exploitation of misappropriated trade secrets embodied in products that are imported into the United States. This article explores the potential impact of the TianRui decision on business practices abroad, particularly …


Comparison Of Chinese And U.S. Patent Reform Legislation: Which, If Either, Got It Right?, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 567 (2012), Wayne C. Jaeschke, Zhun Lu, Paul Crawford Jan 2012

Comparison Of Chinese And U.S. Patent Reform Legislation: Which, If Either, Got It Right?, 11 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 567 (2012), Wayne C. Jaeschke, Zhun Lu, Paul Crawford

UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law

Chinese patent law has a short history whereas the United States ("U.S.") system has a more robust history. This article chronicles important remaining differences between Chinese and U.S. patent laws including the utility model successfully employed at State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China ("SIPO") and in the Chinese courts, but not available under U.S. law. Some differences are discussed in regard of patent appeals, reexaminations for invalidity, China’s lack of a reissue process to correct major errors, China’s inventors remuneration process and compulsory licensing of patents, and China’s unique requirement of post termination compensation to support …